Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

 

Second Cross Examination Rebuttal Statement

 

Ben Rosado

 

 

 

 

Dear Moses,

 

In your response to the last statement I sent you, you firstly said that:

 

Eliakim, when given the “keys of the house of David” is not given rule over the kingdom!  It is over the household including the treasury of the royal palace, etc…for all practical purposes, he was the “palace administrator”.

 

Well I am sorry if I said in any way that Eliakim was given rule over the kingdom.  That is not what I meant, any more than Catholics believe that the Pope is the ruler over the church. 

 

Elaikim is given the Keys in a way that is similar to the keys given to Simon.  He is not the King himself, but he is given the keys so that he can be the master of the king's palace:

 

for in Is 36, 3 it says of Eliakim that:

 

"...there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim"

 

Let me explain why I even mentioned these verses from Isaiah.  The reason why is because in the old testament, we find many pre-figurings of the new testament.  For example, Irenaeus wrote that:

 

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

 

The scripture has such depth that the meaning of texts also can correspond to what Christ fully accomplished through his life, death and resurrection.  And especially in what Jesus proclaimed about the kingdom of heaven and the church:

 

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church   Mt 16, 18

 

There are several times in scripture where the apostles explain that the Old Testament prefigures the new.  A good example of this understanding is from 1 Peter:

 

            God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.

 

This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

                                                               

                                                                                                                1 Pet 3, 20-22

 

You mentioned that you believe that:

 

 Now, following the personal pronouns in these verses reveal that this prophecy historically refers to and was fulfilled in the person of Eliakim

 

But this is not the only way to understand the scriptures Moses.  Peter and Paul both used the Old Testament to show pre-shadowing of Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom. 

 

Well I hope that this explains some of why I have brought these verses to this topic. 

 

Now I would like to expound a bit more on the office of the Papacy.

 

The papacy is included in Jesus' message because the Lord knows that with Him in heaven, the church would need to be led into the fullness of truth, to guide the church.

 

            But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.    John 16, 13

 

This is why the holy Spirit is given by Jesus death, resurrection and especially His ascension into heaven:

 

But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'

 

But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts.

 

But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

 

                                                                                                        John 16, 5-7

 

The picture that the scripture show to us here is that the apostles love the Lord so much and yet are being told that they should rejoice because Jesus is leaving them!  This is very strange for the Lord to say that they should be joyful at His departure, the loss of the one they love.  But Jesus explains why they should actually be joyful: 

 

The Advocate will come to them.  They are not joyful at His departure because simply because they will be saved and go to heaven some day.  Although I am sure that is an important aspect of the joy of Christians.  The Lord is saying that the holy Spirit will be with them if He leaves them.

 

So it follows that the holy Spirit, the real Spirit of Jesus and His Father, will be with them in an intimate way.  In a way greater than that of having Jesus walk with them as their master and teacher.  This is hard to understand unless you have an experience of the depth and richness of the holy Spirit in the lives of Christians.  He is really with us and speaks to us!  He, God, is one with us in an unexplainable way.

 

Try to accept this alongside this other promise from Jesus about the holy Spirit

 

When they lead you away and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever will be given to you at that hour. For it will not be you who are speaking but the holy Spirit.

 

                                                                                                Mark 13, 11

 

Can you explain how deeply united Christians are to the Lord in this?  The gospels tell us that at times, our words will not be our own but that of the holy Spirit Himself.

 

Isn't this a promise that the Lord will continue to speak through his chruch after He has returned to heaven?  Well yes it is, for:

 

Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.    Mt 28, 20

 

Moses, I want to explain in the most simple way the reason why catholics beleive that we are the same church that Jesus founded.

 

Jesus said He would be with us always.  That means He is with His true Church in the years 50 A.D. , 100 A.D. , 300 A.D. , 800 A.D. , 1400 A.D. , 1600 A.D. and 2000 A.D.

 

Doesn't this make complete sense?  If it doesn't because of a disagreement with what the church teaches today, then isn't it reasonable to believe in what the church teaches today if it always taught that?

 

This is why I am Catholic!

 

The more you read the church fathers along with the bible, you can see all the catholic understandings of the scripture and of Christ.

 

Think of it this way, if you had only the bible with no book of commentary alongside of it, you may come to a certain conclusion of what the scriptures are teaching us.

 

But think of it this way, If you have the bible along with a trustworthy commentary, you would learn even more. 

 

And my point is only this:  What is a more trustworthy commentary of the scripture and the church than the writings of the early church fathers?  After all, they were closer to Christ and the teaching of the apostles.  Some of them (Ignatius for example) were actually taught by Apostles themselves.  You should trust his teaching much more than anyone who disagrees with his teaching for that reason.  Moses, I ask you , isn't this completely true and trustworthy?

 

The Church is explained definitively through the early church fathers and so why should we try to explain away what they passed on to us through the ages?

 

After all Moses, you said that the church has always existed since the time of Christ.  And there is no other church but the one and only one that has existed thoughout the many years.

 

Whether you accept it's teaching or not, it is the only Church that has existed.  And the fathers all agree.

 

with love in the risen One, Jesus Christ,

 

Ben